This is the generally accepted but largely forgotten version of history. While MS did the relatively simple task of copying an OS from IBM...
Speaking of history, you seem to have forgotten some yourself. MS didn't copy the OS from IBM, they bought it from Seattle Computer, where Tim Paterson had written it as a knockoff of Digital Research's CPM86. It was called QD-DOS at the time (Quick-n-dirty DOS). Later, Microsoft turned their legal guns on Seattle Computer and forced them out of the PC operating system business.
Incidently, I actually ran QD-DOS. A friend had it on a S100 machine, and I used it to take advantage of the 'a' (assembler) command built into QD-DOS's debugger, since Microsoft had omitted that feature from their version of the debugger and I needed to bootstrap an interpreter. Hmm, Microsoft also delayed release of their macro assembler the better part of a year, in other words, as long as they could before somebody else would be able to fill that niche with their own product. Since IBM had published the source code of the BIOS (yes they did, I have my copy right here!) we all knew that a perfectly functional assembler was available and that it was being held back. Now that I think about it, this was no doubt done to help Microsoft get an early lead in development tools for the PC, but Bill probably argued to IBM that it was somehow in IBM's interest to delay the release of the assembler. This tactic worked. It didn't keep other companies out of the market entirely - Borland and Watcom are good examples - but it helped get Microsoft into a position where it was able to use other means of eliminating the competition later.
What I'm trying to say is... here it comes... that if it weren't for MS, we would still be paying an arm and a leg for PCs.
Hey, that is a nice point, sweetly put. Lets give Bill a big thankyou, and let me add that, if it weren't for Microsoft, Linux would certainly not have developed as rapidly and effectively as it has.
Let me also add that Microsoft has long outlived its usefulness in terms of driving PC prices down (Linux and BSD now fill that role more effectively) and the benefit of driving forward Linux development is far outweighed by other kinds of damage Microsoft does.
True I haven't tried Mandrake but I've seen enough of Linux [e.g. RH] to know the "you don't have the millionth copy of this RPM to install this package circular logic" crap. [..] Last time I installed Linux [RH 8.0] I got three versions of QT, five different kernels, two copies of GCC, KDE/Gnome support libs, various versions of Motif, etc, etc...
You haven't tried Xandros either apparently, or Suse, or... well, actually I don't think you've tried anything recent. It sounds like you want a Debian-based distribution, so I'd recommend Xandros. Debian just doesn't have library dependency problems, unless you intentionally run the unstable version, which a lot of folks due just for the geek factor. Even then, dependency problems are so rare you might never run into one as a casual user.
Sounds like you're not a geek though, so I'd say, just go for Xandros - it installs easily, plus has the typical Debian upgrade smoothness.
As seen in this report on the Register, Microsoft Sales Reps have even gone so far as to offer FREE Windows server software licenses to companies considering the move to Open Source.
It won't work. It just sends the message that, to get all your Windows software for free, you just have to install a few Linux boxes at your company, show some of your folks how to start OpenOffice, and invite the MS rep over to see your setup. Ahem, the fun is about to begin.
Q3 engine based games like RTCW already support this.
Thanks, dear AC, for pointing that out. In other words, id has already ushered in the era of multi-cpu gaming, and there's no question at all that dual cpus get you more bang for the buck than a single high-end processor, twice as fast. At least this goes for id games, but imho, where goes John, goes the entire 3D game industry in the long run.
So now the interesting question is: when do quad machines hit the sweet spot on the cost/performance curve? I'll go out on a limb and guess "quite soon", that is, 3 years or so from now, and that is entirely due to the fact that AMD has already integrated most of the glue you need for SMP onto the Hammer. Now it's mainly a matter of waiting for quad mainboards to start hitting the overclocker market. Yes, there is an overclocker market, and there are companies serving it.
When it comes down to it, you only get cost-effective scalability by using distributed systems or clustering. In fact, for really large systems, it's the only possible way at all.
Three years ago you would have been right, but today the cheapest way to (nearly) double your computing power is to put in a dual processor board. I.e., the day of the home dual-processor has arrived. For example, you can now get a dual processor Athlon board for $200, and in spite of what the docs say, you can put $50 processors in it instead of the $500 big brothers AMD recommends.
It's only a matter of time before you start seeing 3D games that can take advantage of dual processor configurations. In fact, they already can in the sense that if a single-threaded game can load up one processor 100% and your box still remains entirely responsive for other applications. That is, you can play Return to Castle Wolfenstein at the same time you run a compile.
Whenever I see posts that say "*BSD is better than Linux", most of the time they are referring to some userland aspect of *BSD compared to some GNU/Linux distro, and not "Linux" the kernel itself. Which isn't really fair IMHO, since most of the time it's not "Linux"'s fault for whatever is being bashed at the time.
Not exactly right. There's no question it was very much Linux's fault for having a less than totally robust virtual memory manager for a number of years. In the push to add features such as memory above 4 gigabytes, stability in corner case and swap performance kind of got left behind. This has been corrected in Linux 2.5 with the new reverse-mapped VM, which sacrifices a little raw speed in such things as process forking (look closely at the benchmarks and notice 2.5 is slightly slower in Con's "process load" benchmarks) and mallocing, in return for far better and more predictable swapping performance. Plus, the new VM provides a better base for new developments you'll see in the next series, such as active memory defragmentation. Over time, we're likely to win back the slight performance losses in (certain areas of) the 2.5 vm, and then some. In the meantime, there's no question that 2.5 is the smoothest running Linux kernel ever.
BSD continues to edge out Linux in some areas, notably NFS server performance. It used to be, BSD had a lot more advantages over Linux than it does now (the BSD developers are darn good). But in the end, Linux offers a much broader range of hardware support and has way more programmers working on it, so slowly but surely is catching up and surpassing in the few areas where BSD still has the edge. If I had to speculate about why Linux gets the massive herds of programmers, I'd say it's because of the license - many volunteer programmers prefer the GPL because of the legal guarantee that their work will remain open and not end up fading away because it had to compete against some heavily-funded proprietary product based on their own code. However, it's clear there are enough top-flight programmers to whom such considerations are unimportant to keep the BSDs not only alive, but vibrant.
See here for a look at some of the nice features BSD, and some ideas for the future. In case anybody thinks the much-talked-about rivalry between Linux and BSD is some kind of war, it isn't. BSD and Linux people often work together, there is a lot of cross-pollination, and the prevailing attitude is one of mutual respect. At the end of the day, it's worth noting that, technically speaking, the closest rival to Linux in the operating system space is another open source project.
Re:Paranoia or marketing to the corporate types
on
More on Longhorn
·
· Score: 2
The 'database' file system is not new (and many on/. have been calling for a Be-like fs)
My initial impression is that Reiser4 is that filesystem, and more. It's far advanced beyond the original ReiserFS.
According to the message posted, the utility used to reflash the BIOS runs in DOS, not Windows, and will work in FreeDOS
Yes, FreeDOS is perfect for this. Just boot the system disk, break out to the shell, and delete CONFIG.SYS so you won't get the install menu any more. Empty out AUTOEXEC.BAT so you won't get prompted for a date, while you're at it. Heh, don't you just love DOS.
Then clear off a few more files/directories (obvious install cruft) to make room for the reflashing utility, a copy of the new bios, and space to save the old one. Now you've got a single-floppy, instant-booting bios flashing tool.
Clearly, DOS isn't quite dead yet, neither are floppies.
Your argument, while pausible, would not be held up in any court.
Think about it this way. A rival BIOS company to Phoenix decides to make a BIOS called Award or Phoenix. Technically, Phoenix's BIOSs names are called Modular BIOS, not "Award Modular BIOS". But this has been proven in trademark cases time and time again.
Your counterargument doesn't make sense. Phoenix does not call their browser-like-thingy "Phoenix Browser", they call it "Phoenix FirstView Connect". Where is the confusion?
Free software is free if you don't value your time. Of _course_ contracting agencies are going to be in favor of open source systems that cost them nothing to procure or redistribute and have less functionality out of the box so that they get more billable hours re-inventing the wheel (again). With the GPL, this is not a problem in the long run, as the improvements made by contractors must necessarily be provided to the customer. It's very much in the customer's interest to ensure that these improvements are contributed back to the original project, helping it evolve, and reducing the cost to the next guy to join the party.
How's that open source sound coming along in linux these days ? Working much better than say, sound in MacOS ? Windows ? Irix ? Got a chip on your shoulder? ALSA is coming along very nicely, thankyou.
"Phoenix *BIOS* has nothing to do with Phoenix *browser*."
Check out this link:
http://www.phoenix.com/en/products/firstview+con ne ct/default.htm
What are you implying? That is a product called "Firstview Connect", not "Phoenix". (Sorry, this is my third reply on this same point, because the above obvious fallacy appears to have slipped through the cracks in some people's critical thinking.)
Phoenix (the company) also makes a browser called Phoenix LiveView/Connect. There is plenty of similiarty there.
No there isn't. It's called "LiveView/Connect", not "Phoenix".
Re:Congratulations, Phoenix. I'll never buy again.
on
Phoenix To Change Name
·
· Score: 2
Well, good luck in trying to avoid Phoenix (the company) in the future. Trying to avoid a particular BIOS company is like trying to avoid books with a certain type of paper.
In the long run, closed-source BIOSes have to be replaced by open source ones anyway, for a variety of reasons, such stability, flexibility, usability, security, etc. In other words, all the same reasons that made it necessary to replace proprietary operating systems with open ones.
Wasn't Killustrator an obvious case of infringement?
No, because "illustrator" is a dictionary word. For Adobe to name their product "illustrator" was just plain stupid, if they wanted to have trademark protection. Oh wait, the U.S. legal system protects them anyway, compensating for Adobe's stupidity by trampling the rights of the general public.
Regardless of the strength of Phoenix's legal position, they have clearly dropped the ball on the moral front, coming across as school yard bullies. If that was not their intention, they should have done something to show it. For example, sponsor a programmer on the project, whatever. Anything to give the impression of give+take. Instead, they just did the take part. Where is the give?
Beating up on volunteers is not a good way to improve your corporate image.
However, I agree with you that "Killustrator" was a stupid name, not because of potential infringment (which IMHO did not exist except in the fevered minds of certain corporate and legal drones) but because it just sounds stupid. "KDE Illustrator" would have been oh-so-much more sensible.
Can you trademark well known mythological creature's and hero's names in the US? I'm pretty sure you can't in Canada then again IANAL.
Clearly, Phoenix is a generic name from mythology, and Phoenix the bios company is merely taking advantage of the fact that it's easy to bully a group of volunteers, whether there is a case for infringment or not. Not only is Pheonix a non-original name, but there is also no possibility of confusion between Phoenix the bios and Phoenix the browser, or any possibility for Phoenix the browser to trade on the goodwill of Pheonix the bios maker. Such goodwill as Pheonix the bios maker has left that is. I don't know about you, but this company just made it onto my black list, right up there with Adobe (remember Killustrator?). No Phoenix bioses will make it into any project that I have control over.
I just wanted people to know why I closed, and what MS thinks is better. It would take a lot for me to "put the genie back in the bottle" - they have already shown their true faces in "out competing" a site that is trying to helpthem instead of co-operating with the many support options as I do.
Well, come on into our community, the water's fine. Your efforts will be appreciated.
Don't forget that a recent poll showed that 50% of/.ers run an MS OS (myself included). They really do have a target audience here.
Actually, that's a very positive thing. Consider that of the number of new readers coming in, far more than 50% would be long-time windows users. So what does the 50% figure tell you? Right. Tens of thousands of switchers.
In fact, that 50% number is just about optimum. It means we're not just preaching to the choir, we're actually doing some work. So what you see at Slashdot is not only exponential growth in readers (yes it is, check the id numbers) but exponential growth in the number of switchers as well.
This begs the question then: why are Microsoft making all of their future file formats XML?
You mean invites the question ("begs the question" does not mean what you think it does).
Microsoft is switching to XML because, among other things, it gives the appearance of being open without actually being open. To Microsoft, XML is just a wrapper for COM, in otherwords, the file formats will be so full of links to strange ActiveX thingies that they will be just as obfuscated as ever. You'll be able to read the ascii, that's all. To be compatible, you would basically have to supply the whole operating system.
Taking what Microsoft says at face value is usually a bad idea.
Finally, two questions to ask yourself as to whether MS is or is not a monopoly. First is competition. Is there more or less competition now than there was in 1995 for mainstreams OS's?
Less. Beos is gone, for one thing. Next question?
Second, ask what would happen to MS's market share if they raised prices very high?
Most customers would grin and bear it, because they are afraid of change. When Microsoft raised prices to business customers by changing the licencing programs, most just grinned and did not change.
Recall the slew of stories about people migrating to OpenOffice and *nix as MS introduced new licensing terms.
I noticed a tiny percentage of Microsoft Office users changing to Openoffice or Star Office. Most just grumble and pay the toll. What's your point?
It also is quite unlikely, since Ahmdahl's law is a trivial observation that is completely independent of parallelization or even software engineering (it also applies to hardware design or even accounting). Basically, it says: if initially only 10% of X (CPU cycles, money, whatever you are trying to save) is spent in the part you are optimizing, there is an upper bound of 10% to the X you can save.
Sorry, wrong law. You seem to be thinking "90% of the time in 10% of the code", a rule of thumb that nobody to my knowledge has ventured to dignify with the term "law". Amdahl's Law (which IMHO doesn't deserve the dignity either) was an attempt to make a statement about the limitations of parallel computing. Relying on wrong assumptions, he drew wrong conclusions, and in the event, parallel clusters have gone on to scale nearly linearly into the tens of thousands of processors, a result he would have liked to have proved impossible.
the orignal poster is right (in a way), a factor of 10 is about the best you can hope for when parallelizing code. Since Amdahl's (or some other guy's) law also says something like 90% of the time is spent in 10% of the code. That makes s=10 and p=90.
No it doesn't. How do you know the 90% is serializable and the 10% isn't? Answer: you don't, there is no relationship whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe there was only one D - QDOS, Quick and Dirty Operating System.
That's correct. It was a while ago...
This is the generally accepted but largely forgotten version of history. While MS did the relatively simple task of copying an OS from IBM...
Speaking of history, you seem to have forgotten some yourself. MS didn't copy the OS from IBM, they bought it from Seattle Computer, where Tim Paterson had written it as a knockoff of Digital Research's CPM86. It was called QD-DOS at the time (Quick-n-dirty DOS). Later, Microsoft turned their legal guns on Seattle Computer and forced them out of the PC operating system business.
Incidently, I actually ran QD-DOS. A friend had it on a S100 machine, and I used it to take advantage of the 'a' (assembler) command built into QD-DOS's debugger, since Microsoft had omitted that feature from their version of the debugger and I needed to bootstrap an interpreter. Hmm, Microsoft also delayed release of their macro assembler the better part of a year, in other words, as long as they could before somebody else would be able to fill that niche with their own product. Since IBM had published the source code of the BIOS (yes they did, I have my copy right here!) we all knew that a perfectly functional assembler was available and that it was being held back. Now that I think about it, this was no doubt done to help Microsoft get an early lead in development tools for the PC, but Bill probably argued to IBM that it was somehow in IBM's interest to delay the release of the assembler. This tactic worked. It didn't keep other companies out of the market entirely - Borland and Watcom are good examples - but it helped get Microsoft into a position where it was able to use other means of eliminating the competition later.
What I'm trying to say is ... here it comes ... that if it weren't for MS, we would still be paying an arm and a leg for PCs.
Hey, that is a nice point, sweetly put. Lets give Bill a big thankyou, and let me add that, if it weren't for Microsoft, Linux would certainly not have developed as rapidly and effectively as it has.
Let me also add that Microsoft has long outlived its usefulness in terms of driving PC prices down (Linux and BSD now fill that role more effectively) and the benefit of driving forward Linux development is far outweighed by other kinds of damage Microsoft does.
True I haven't tried Mandrake but I've seen enough of Linux [e.g. RH] to know the "you don't have the millionth copy of this RPM to install this package circular logic" crap. [..] Last time I installed Linux [RH 8.0] I got three versions of QT, five different kernels, two copies of GCC, KDE/Gnome support libs, various versions of Motif, etc, etc...
You haven't tried Xandros either apparently, or Suse, or... well, actually I don't think you've tried anything recent. It sounds like you want a Debian-based distribution, so I'd recommend Xandros. Debian just doesn't have library dependency problems, unless you intentionally run the unstable version, which a lot of folks due just for the geek factor. Even then, dependency problems are so rare you might never run into one as a casual user.
Sounds like you're not a geek though, so I'd say, just go for Xandros - it installs easily, plus has the typical Debian upgrade smoothness.
As seen in this report on the Register, Microsoft Sales Reps have even gone so far as to offer FREE Windows server software licenses to companies considering the move to Open Source.
It won't work. It just sends the message that, to get all your Windows software for free, you just have to install a few Linux boxes at your company, show some of your folks how to start OpenOffice, and invite the MS rep over to see your setup. Ahem, the fun is about to begin.
Q3 engine based games like RTCW already support this.
Thanks, dear AC, for pointing that out. In other words, id has already ushered in the era of multi-cpu gaming, and there's no question at all that dual cpus get you more bang for the buck than a single high-end processor, twice as fast. At least this goes for id games, but imho, where goes John, goes the entire 3D game industry in the long run.
So now the interesting question is: when do quad machines hit the sweet spot on the cost/performance curve? I'll go out on a limb and guess "quite soon", that is, 3 years or so from now, and that is entirely due to the fact that AMD has already integrated most of the glue you need for SMP onto the Hammer. Now it's mainly a matter of waiting for quad mainboards to start hitting the overclocker market. Yes, there is an overclocker market, and there are companies serving it.
Quad Hammer for gaming anyone?
When it comes down to it, you only get cost-effective scalability by using distributed systems or clustering. In fact, for really large systems, it's the only possible way at all.
Three years ago you would have been right, but today the cheapest way to (nearly) double your computing power is to put in a dual processor board. I.e., the day of the home dual-processor has arrived. For example, you can now get a dual processor Athlon board for $200, and in spite of what the docs say, you can put $50 processors in it instead of the $500 big brothers AMD recommends.
It's only a matter of time before you start seeing 3D games that can take advantage of dual processor configurations. In fact, they already can in the sense that if a single-threaded game can load up one processor 100% and your box still remains entirely responsive for other applications. That is, you can play Return to Castle Wolfenstein at the same time you run a compile.
Whenever I see posts that say "*BSD is better than Linux", most of the time they are referring to some userland aspect of *BSD compared to some GNU/Linux distro, and not "Linux" the kernel itself. Which isn't really fair IMHO, since most of the time it's not "Linux"'s fault for whatever is being bashed at the time.
Not exactly right. There's no question it was very much Linux's fault for having a less than totally robust virtual memory manager for a number of years. In the push to add features such as memory above 4 gigabytes, stability in corner case and swap performance kind of got left behind. This has been corrected in Linux 2.5 with the new reverse-mapped VM, which sacrifices a little raw speed in such things as process forking (look closely at the benchmarks and notice 2.5 is slightly slower in Con's "process load" benchmarks) and mallocing, in return for far better and more predictable swapping performance. Plus, the new VM provides a better base for new developments you'll see in the next series, such as active memory defragmentation. Over time, we're likely to win back the slight performance losses in (certain areas of) the 2.5 vm, and then some. In the meantime, there's no question that 2.5 is the smoothest running Linux kernel ever.
BSD continues to edge out Linux in some areas, notably NFS server performance. It used to be, BSD had a lot more advantages over Linux than it does now (the BSD developers are darn good). But in the end, Linux offers a much broader range of hardware support and has way more programmers working on it, so slowly but surely is catching up and surpassing in the few areas where BSD still has the edge. If I had to speculate about why Linux gets the massive herds of programmers, I'd say it's because of the license - many volunteer programmers prefer the GPL because of the legal guarantee that their work will remain open and not end up fading away because it had to compete against some heavily-funded proprietary product based on their own code. However, it's clear there are enough top-flight programmers to whom such considerations are unimportant to keep the BSDs not only alive, but vibrant.
See here for a look at some of the nice features BSD, and some ideas for the future. In case anybody thinks the much-talked-about rivalry between Linux and BSD is some kind of war, it isn't. BSD and Linux people often work together, there is a lot of cross-pollination, and the prevailing attitude is one of mutual respect. At the end of the day, it's worth noting that, technically speaking, the closest rival to Linux in the operating system space is another open source project.
The 'database' file system is not new (and many on /. have been calling for a Be-like fs)
My initial impression is that Reiser4 is that filesystem, and more. It's far advanced beyond the original ReiserFS.
According to the message posted, the utility used to reflash the BIOS runs in DOS, not Windows, and will work in FreeDOS
Yes, FreeDOS is perfect for this. Just boot the system disk, break out to the shell, and delete CONFIG.SYS so you won't get the install menu any more. Empty out AUTOEXEC.BAT so you won't get prompted for a date, while you're at it. Heh, don't you just love DOS.
Then clear off a few more files/directories (obvious install cruft) to make room for the reflashing utility, a copy of the new bios, and space to save the old one. Now you've got a single-floppy, instant-booting bios flashing tool.
Clearly, DOS isn't quite dead yet, neither are floppies.
Your argument, while pausible, would not be held up in any court.
Think about it this way. A rival BIOS company to Phoenix decides to make a BIOS called Award or Phoenix. Technically, Phoenix's BIOSs names are called Modular BIOS, not "Award Modular BIOS". But this has been proven in trademark cases time and time again.
Your counterargument doesn't make sense. Phoenix does not call their browser-like-thingy "Phoenix Browser", they call it "Phoenix FirstView Connect". Where is the confusion?
Free software is free if you don't value your time. Of _course_ contracting agencies are going to be in favor of open source systems that cost them nothing to procure or redistribute and have less functionality out of the box so that they get more billable hours re-inventing the wheel (again).
With the GPL, this is not a problem in the long run, as the improvements made by contractors must necessarily be provided to the customer. It's very much in the customer's interest to ensure that these improvements are contributed back to the original project, helping it evolve, and reducing the cost to the next guy to join the party.
How's that open source sound coming along in linux these days ? Working much better than say, sound in MacOS ? Windows ? Irix ?
Got a chip on your shoulder? ALSA is coming along very nicely, thankyou.
"Phoenix *BIOS* has nothing to do with Phoenix *browser*."
n ne ct/default.htm
Check out this link:
http://www.phoenix.com/en/products/firstview+co
What are you implying? That is a product called "Firstview Connect", not "Phoenix". (Sorry, this is my third reply on this same point, because the above obvious fallacy appears to have slipped through the cracks in some people's critical thinking.)
Phoenix (the company) also makes a browser called Phoenix LiveView/Connect. There is plenty of similiarty there.
No there isn't. It's called "LiveView/Connect", not "Phoenix".
Well, good luck in trying to avoid Phoenix (the company) in the future. Trying to avoid a particular BIOS company is like trying to avoid books with a certain type of paper.
In the long run, closed-source BIOSes have to be replaced by open source ones anyway, for a variety of reasons, such stability, flexibility, usability, security, etc. In other words, all the same reasons that made it necessary to replace proprietary operating systems with open ones.
This trend is already beginning.
I guess you've never heard of Phoenix FirstView Connect
How is that confusing? The name of that browser (if it is one) is "First View Connect", not "Phoenix".
Wasn't Killustrator an obvious case of infringement?
No, because "illustrator" is a dictionary word. For Adobe to name their product "illustrator" was just plain stupid, if they wanted to have trademark protection. Oh wait, the U.S. legal system protects them anyway, compensating for Adobe's stupidity by trampling the rights of the general public.
Regardless of the strength of Phoenix's legal position, they have clearly dropped the ball on the moral front, coming across as school yard bullies. If that was not their intention, they should have done something to show it. For example, sponsor a programmer on the project, whatever. Anything to give the impression of give+take. Instead, they just did the take part. Where is the give?
Beating up on volunteers is not a good way to improve your corporate image.
However, I agree with you that "Killustrator" was a stupid name, not because of potential infringment (which IMHO did not exist except in the fevered minds of certain corporate and legal drones) but because it just sounds stupid. "KDE Illustrator" would have been oh-so-much more sensible.
Can you trademark well known mythological creature's and hero's names in the US? I'm pretty sure you can't in Canada then again IANAL.
Clearly, Phoenix is a generic name from mythology, and Phoenix the bios company is merely taking advantage of the fact that it's easy to bully a group of volunteers, whether there is a case for infringment or not. Not only is Pheonix a non-original name, but there is also no possibility of confusion between Phoenix the bios and Phoenix the browser, or any possibility for Phoenix the browser to trade on the goodwill of Pheonix the bios maker. Such goodwill as Pheonix the bios maker has left that is. I don't know about you, but this company just made it onto my black list, right up there with Adobe (remember Killustrator?). No Phoenix bioses will make it into any project that I have control over.
I just wanted people to know why I closed, and what MS thinks is better. It would take a lot for me to "put the genie back in the bottle" - they have already shown their true faces in "out competing" a site that is trying to helpthem instead of co-operating with the many support options as I do.
Well, come on into our community, the water's fine. Your efforts will be appreciated.
Don't forget that a recent poll showed that 50% of /.ers run an MS OS (myself included). They really do have a target audience here.
Actually, that's a very positive thing. Consider that of the number of new readers coming in, far more than 50% would be long-time windows users. So what does the 50% figure tell you? Right. Tens of thousands of switchers.
In fact, that 50% number is just about optimum. It means we're not just preaching to the choir, we're actually doing some work. So what you see at Slashdot is not only exponential growth in readers (yes it is, check the id numbers) but exponential growth in the number of switchers as well.
This begs the question then: why are Microsoft making all of their future file formats XML?
You mean invites the question ("begs the question" does not mean what you think it does).
Microsoft is switching to XML because, among other things, it gives the appearance of being open without actually being open. To Microsoft, XML is just a wrapper for COM, in otherwords, the file formats will be so full of links to strange ActiveX thingies that they will be just as obfuscated as ever. You'll be able to read the ascii, that's all. To be compatible, you would basically have to supply the whole operating system.
Taking what Microsoft says at face value is usually a bad idea.
Finally, two questions to ask yourself as to whether MS is or is not a monopoly. First is competition. Is there more or less competition now than there was in 1995 for mainstreams OS's?
Less. Beos is gone, for one thing. Next question?
Second, ask what would happen to MS's market share if they raised prices very high?
Most customers would grin and bear it, because they are afraid of change. When Microsoft raised prices to business customers by changing the licencing programs, most just grinned and did not change.
Recall the slew of stories about people migrating to OpenOffice and *nix as MS introduced new licensing terms.
I noticed a tiny percentage of Microsoft Office users changing to Openoffice or Star Office. Most just grumble and pay the toll. What's your point?
How do you know the 90% is serializable and the 10% isn't?
Whoops, did I really write serializable when I meant parallelizable???
Please write and publish a paper about it!
Such rhetoric, oh my.
This is a major breakthrough in computer science.
It also is quite unlikely, since Ahmdahl's law is a trivial observation that is completely independent of parallelization or even software engineering (it also applies to hardware design or even accounting). Basically, it says: if initially only 10% of X (CPU cycles, money, whatever you are trying to save) is spent in the part you are optimizing, there is an upper bound of 10% to the X you can save.
Sorry, wrong law. You seem to be thinking "90% of the time in 10% of the code", a rule of thumb that nobody to my knowledge has ventured to dignify with the term "law". Amdahl's Law (which IMHO doesn't deserve the dignity either) was an attempt to make a statement about the limitations of parallel computing. Relying on wrong assumptions, he drew wrong conclusions, and in the event, parallel clusters have gone on to scale nearly linearly into the tens of thousands of processors, a result he would have liked to have proved impossible.
Read more here.
the orignal poster is right (in a way), a factor of 10 is about the best you can hope for when parallelizing code. Since Amdahl's (or some other guy's) law also says something like 90% of the time is spent in 10% of the code. That makes s=10 and p=90.
No it doesn't. How do you know the 90% is serializable and the 10% isn't? Answer: you don't, there is no relationship whatsoever.
Sheesh.